Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (46673)	9/24/2002 4:47:32 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

You have stated a case that boils down to: no pre-emption. Well, almost. My case is that (a) he did not attack us on 9-11--no serious evidence; (b) no serious evidence that he was implicated in the Al Q planning to attack us; (c) and no serious evidence he is presently planning to attack us. If we go with the argument that one can never tell about intentions, so we should ignore that, it licenses any country to attack any other country whenever they wish. Moreover, as I type, it occurs to me that the notion of not knowing intentions is itself not a strong one. It's quite possible to accumulate enough circumstantial evidence. In the Cuban case, whatever Castro's intentions were (or for that matter Krushchev's), it actually didn't matter. it simply was not possible for the US to tolerate Russian missiles that close; though we had them that close to them. That was, after all, the Cold War. This is not.